From: Paul Noone
When using XHTML strict named anchors need to surround some link text, yes?
I'd tinkered with a[name]:hover but I'm loathe to create a style for this.
I
don't think hiding them is th eoption either.
Actually, when using XHTML Strict, name is not a valid attribute for
Martin J. Lambert wrote:
Actually, when using XHTML Strict, name is not a valid attribute for
anchors. You can use the id attribute to get the same jump-to-that-
section-of-the-page behaviour, but this will work with *any* element,
not just anchors. Since you don't want the appearance of a
Hey Guys,
I am curious if you know of a way in Javascript to change the Time
Zone Offset for Date Object. There is a way to getTimezoneOffset, but
I do not see a way to set the Time Zone Offset. When you create a new
Date object it will always be set to the current local time zone as
defined on
Thanks for the tip,
I tried adding this for IE in the CSS:
* html #box{/*used for internet explorer*/
float:right;
width:25em;
background-color:#789;
margin:0;
padding:0;
}
but I still get the added stuff for my box:
http://www.inspired-evolution.com/Accessibility.php
From: Thierry Koblentz
Martin J. Lambert wrote:
Actually, when using XHTML Strict, name is not a valid attribute for
anchors. You can use the id attribute to get the same jump-to-that-
section-of-the-page behaviour, but this will work with *any* element,
not just anchors. Since you don't
Hi All
I've always been one to remove border attributes from data table markup.
However, today I disabled styles on a fairly complicated table and realized
it made very little sense without any demarcation between the cells.
It would be simple enough to do table border=1.
And table, td, th,
Martin J. Lambert wrote:
From: Thierry Koblentz
I'm not sure about that, I think it is better to use both attributes
and may be even more to prevent a IE bug related to tabbing
navigation. http://www.motive.co.nz/glossary/anchor.php
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
name is used for old browsers. And I'm pretty sure it validates against a
Strict DTD (HTML or XHTML 1.0).
Please correct me if I'm wrong here...
No, you're indeed correct. Up to XHTML 1.0 Strict it's perfectly valid
to use the name attribute on anchors. It's only
Thanks guys. Patrick is right. I'd already validated the code and it came up
fine.
The reason I've run into this little problem is because, unlike HTML, XHTML
seems to require that the a tag surrounds some text. Perhaps an nbsp;
would do it?
The named anchor is picking up the color of the a:link
Paul Noone wrote:
The reason I've run into this little problem is because, unlike HTML,
XHTML seems to require that the a tag surrounds some text. Perhaps
an nbsp; would do it?
What make you think you can't leave them empty?
How are other people preventing this, apart from hiding their
For IE and Firefox on PC, the styles I apply to a:link don't effect anchors.
See example http://www.damienhill.com/tests/links/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Paul Noone
Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2005 7:52 AM
To:
Damien Hill wrote:
For IE and Firefox on PC, the styles I apply to a:link don't effect anchors.
Because a name=blah/a is not a :link, but a local anchor, whereas
a more generic a style selector will include those as well. So yes, a
simple way to avoid issues is to just define a:link,
Well now I'm totally confused. Ah...can anyone spell Dreamweaver? :\ a-HEM.
Big sorry there.
What make you think you can't leave them empty?
Assumptions based on a code rewrite. Is that not the case? In which case can
it be self-containg and self-closing too?
a name=fubar /
I'm sure I ran
On 31/10/05, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
name is used for old browsers. And I'm pretty sure it validates against a
Strict DTD (HTML or XHTML 1.0).
Please correct me if I'm wrong here...
No, you're indeed correct. Up to XHTML 1.0 Strict it's perfectly
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Damien Hill wrote:
For IE and Firefox on PC, the styles I apply to a:link don't effect
anchors.
Because a name=blah/a is not a :link, but a local anchor,
whereas a more generic a style selector will include those as well.
So yes, a simple way to avoid issues is to
Gez Lemon wrote:
The name attribute is formerly deprecated for a, applet, form, frame,
iframe, img, and map in XHTML 1.0, and deleted from XHTML 1.1.
I stand (well, sit) corrected. I meant deleted, but said deprecated...d'oh!
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
I need to get this email link to validate, i am using a coldfusion function to do this and I tried encoding it to a url safe line (urlencodedformat) but jacks it, any other ideas?or any good ideas for hiding emails from spammers that can use a dynamic email
Paul Noone wrote:
Well now I'm totally confused. Ah...can anyone spell Dreamweaver? :\
a-HEM. Big sorry there.
What make you think you can't leave them empty?
Assumptions based on a code rewrite. Is that not the case? In which
case can it be self-containg and self-closing too?
a
You could just try hex encoding the address. There are
several utilities available that will convert an email (or any other address) to
its hexadecimal value. It's not bulletproof but, then, what is. And it
validates.
FYI, Smarty (PHP template system) has this
built-in.
From: [EMAIL
thanks,the way its written im not sure if i can or not, i will try though :)From: "Patrick H. Lauke" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 6:30 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] help on making this link validatecsslist wrote: I need to get this email link to validate, i
It would be simple enough to do table border=1.
And table, td, th, thead, tbody, tfoot {border:none;}
And then add them back as needed.
What do you think? Is it a good idea? Should I turn around and run away from
adding some presentational markup in my pages?
I think it's find to have
Hi,
However, today I disabled styles on a fairly complicated table and realized
it made very little sense without any demarcation between the cells.
It would be simple enough to do table border=1.
I've found that tables really need a border to make sense, much the
same as a fieldset needs the
Martin J. Lambert wrote:
Actually, when using XHTML Strict, name is not a valid attribute for
anchors. You can use the id attribute to get the same jump-to-that-
section-of-the-page behaviour, but this will work with *any* element,
not just anchors. Since you don't want the appearance of a
Hi all,
Just done on a site that is near-pixel perfect in (I think) everything
but Opera, which does something weird with the nav (rendering the site
unusable).
I have absolutely no idea why, though. IE was showing some quirky
behaviours but I managed to make Firefox (and Konqueror) display in
Gez Lemon wrote:
The name attribute is formerly deprecated for...form...in XHTML 1.0, and
deleted from XHTML 1.1.
From form, yes, but not from the various form elements such as
input /, where it may in fact be required for proper functioning,
though valid without. While I'm sure most of you
Paul Noone wrote:
I'd tinkered with a[name]:hover but I'm loathe to create a style for this. I
don't think hiding them is th eoption either.
Why not use a class (a name=... class=named/a) as a[name]
doesn't yet work on IE, never mind any browser which doesn't understand
jumping to an id.
26 matches
Mail list logo
